The 1-square charge

[Crazy Jerome]

However the idea that some hulking brute of a dude in plate armor can do a move, melee basic, and another move as a standard Lunge action is waaaay broken, with or without an extra OA for the target...

You may have simply over-simplified the language, but be aware that what you just described is not what is proposed. It is move 1 square, attack with melee basic, and then move back to the original square. That's it. And the movement is only described that way to make it easy to cut out some of the movement objections that Andy raised earlier.

And remember, though it is described that way mechanically, it is doesn't happen exactly that way, any more than, say, in combat, everyone takes turns moving and then attacking. The reality is that each combatant is moving constantly, and the weapon is feinting/attacking/blocking constantly at the same time--and with anyone with any training at all, often apparently out of sync with the lower body movement. We are only rough modeling that reality, adapted for cinematic/epic fantasy, or at least a sword and sorcery fantasy.

As I indicated earlier, to the extent that you care about realism being more strictly applied, the problem is not with the lack of a 1-square charge option. Rather, the problem is that the charge itself is way too generous. If you want to be realistic about it, make a charge consume a move and a standard action, perhaps with 2 squares of extra movement to compensate, give extra damage, descreased AC, and descreased to hit. That is a "realistic" charge, except perhaps for someone charging with a polearm or spear against someone without, across flat ground. But that doesn't really fit the 4E model of combat (or the design intention to mostly eliminate penalties in favor of opportunity costs of different bonuses).

If you think that the charge as written is fine, but that the plate armored guy can't dart in and out while making an attack, your "realism" radar is misaligned.

 

[TheUltramark]

i see
first it was "I can't attack"
now its "I can't attack good enough"

there are powers that allow a shift-then-attack
into the fray
inexorable shift
nimble strike
nimble blade

and I stopped looking

 

[andy3k]

i see
first it was "I can't attack"
now its "I can't attack good enough"

there are powers that allow a shift-then-attack
into the fray
inexorable shift
nimble strike
nimble blade

and I stopped looking

Yes, we started with "can't attack" but then moved to "can't attack good enough." That is because our defenders (for the most part, but other melee, too) were being punished for being an arbitrary 1 square away from a foe. If I can do an at-will attack from adjacent and a charge from 2 squares away (at +1, mind you) to do a melee basic attack, why should I settle for an attack at 1 square away that is weaker than either of the other two?

Into the fray is NOT a standard action attack, it is merely a minor action that lets you move ... once an encounter ... starting at level 10. I have to wait until level 10 to use this once in an encounter where the situation can come up multiple times? Nope.

inexorable shift is a MOVE action. I don't have a move or I would have used it.

nimble strike is for a ranged attack. We're talking about a melee build.

nimble blade didn't come up on my compendium search.

If you are going to throw out a few examples, throw out some realistic ones that solve the problem at heroic level for melee defenders IN GENERAL. Shift/move and attack is not an at-will for most classes, especially defenders, and not even a common encounter power. Give me something I can use repeatedly like charge is used.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

i see
first it was "I can't attack"
now its "I can't attack good enough"

Yeah, "I can't attack good enough" is a problem. Just like "I can't play ball good enough with my left hand" is a problem. Lack of balance is a problem.

In fact, it's one of the big reasons I prefer 4e over earlier editions.

there are powers that allow a shift-then-attack
into the fray
inexorable shift
nimble strike
nimble blade

and I stopped looking

So I have to pay a power tax to do something once per encounter that I should intuitively be able to do at-will? That's worse than 3e when my rogue had to pay a feat tax just to add his Dex to melee attacks. At least Weapon Finesse is always active.

 

[TheUltramark]

well, I can't help you if all you want is to not have any negative affects or consequences from anything. Why not home brew a rule that standing is a free action for your character? or maybe a rule that you get two moves every round instead of one, or, maybe you could find a little green mushroom and have unlimited action points.
Hopefully someone can use one of these ideas, otherwise, maybe we can accept the fact that once in a while, the monsters can have the upper hand for a round or two.

ps - soooo sorry, I was inaccurate, it is not nimble blade it is deft strike, but thats a striker power, not a defender power. Maybe making defenders uber-b.a. damage dealers wasn't high on the agenda, who can say.

 

[FireLance]

well, I can't help you if all you want is to not have any negative affects or consequences from anything.

Avoiding negative effects or consequences is not the issue. I'm quite sure that most, if not all, of those arguing for the Lunge action are quite willing to accept that if a PC (or a monster, when DMing) is knocked prone one or more squares away from an enemy, he should spend a move action to get up and then spend a standard action to charge instead of using another, probably more dangerous ability.

The problem is the artifical-seeming "bubble of safety" - you can just attack an adjacent opponent, and you can charge one three or more squares away, but to have no way of making a melee attack against a creature exactly two squares away from you? How does that make sense?

 

[andy3k]

I agree with FireLance. Fleche, as defined above, is less effective than either a standard attack while adjacent or a charge when at least 2 squares away. This is not power creep, this is closing a loophole.

And why do you say that it's okay for the monsters to get the advantage? Monsters can use fleche, too. The field is even. In fact, I'm more concerned with intelligent and versatile PCs putting monsters into the nasty 1-square bubble than vice versa. All things being equal, for the most part, we're talking about the un-fun-ness (that is certainly NOT a dictionary word ) of having a standard action in which I can do nothing equivalent to a standard attack or charge when the only thing preventing it is a 1 square gap. I am participating in the re-defining of stun for the same reason ... un-fun-ness.

D&D is supposed to be high fantasy where everyone is heroic. Yes, it is important for combat to be balanced, and I am okay with being punished, but don't take away my ability to play.

How many people have played Monopoly and gotten stuck in jail for 3 turns while others circle the board, buying up property. Royally sucks, huh?

 

[OnlineDM]

Keep in mind that TheUltramark does not believe that the Charge action allows a move of 2+ squares combined with a melee basic attack for the cost of a single standard action (see above posts here here here and here). The complaints about Lunge/Fleche being overpowered make sense if you don't understand that Charge already exists and is better in every case EXCEPT when there's exactly one square between the attacker and the target.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

TheUltramark clearly isn't interested in discussion. He's gone from simply ignoring points against which he has no rebuttal to blatant hyperbola. EDIT: Unless he simply doesn't know about charging by RAW, as Online DM says. If so dude, go read page 287-288 in your PHB.

How many people have played Monopoly and gotten stuck in jail for 3 turns while others circle the board, buying up property. Royally sucks, huh?

To be fair, spending three turns in jail doesn't happen very often. Usually you pay the $50 and get out next turn. Except if the board is covered with houses and hotels, in which case everyone is praying for jail time.

But usually by that time, someone has gotten distracted by the gnawing hunger in their belly, or thrown the game board across the room.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The problem is the artifical-seeming "bubble of safety" - you can just attack an adjacent opponent, and you can charge one three or more squares away, but to have no way of making a melee attack against a creature exactly two squares away from you? How does that make sense?

That is the only part that bothers me. It is inelegant rules, which gnaws at me when playing a game, all out of proportion to its actual play consequences.

I like my D&D larger than life. So naturally something that removes the inelegance and also gives the creatures affected a larger than life option, is fine with me. But if someone wants to close the loophole by taking things away, I've got no beef with that.

For example, Make charge even less attractive. Then say that when adjacent to an opponent and standing up (or otherwise taking a move action to orient yourself, e.g. daze), you must shift one square away, and thus end up in the 1-square problem space. There, now if you are "near" an opponent, adjacent or 1-square, and lose your move, you don't get to make a melee attack with your standard. You can throw something, run away, whatever. Powers that let you stand up or whatever bypass this restriction.

It is not as elegant as the solution proposed, and rather too concerned with realism for my tastes when playing 4E, but it is consistent.